"Highly engineered explosive" found in WTC rubble...

[CJvR]

Controlled!?!?!?

IIRC then the upper third of the first tower fell sideways onto the buldings below. That is about as controlled as the London renewal project called "the Blitz" or Nero's little arson in Rome.

[Isolder74]

Ironic this thread appeared just after someone condemned my baking of a fire truck cake as a tribute to the firefighters on that day. I wonder if the loser was a truther?

[Darth Wong]

Controlled!?!?!?

IIRC then the upper third of the first tower fell sideways onto the buldings below. That is about as controlled as the London renewal project called "the Blitz" or Nero's little arson in Rome.

Their arguments are self-contradictory. They claim that the mainstream authorities are lying when they say the building fell down chaotically, and that it actually fell in perfectly symmetrical fashion. Then they point out that a nearby building also collapsed from collateral damage, and they ask how the mainstream authorities explain that in light of the perfectly symmetrical collapse. And they don't even see the obvious answer.

I do seriously wonder if they're all either pathological liars or so stupid that they shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than a butter knife.

[Darmalus]

Controlled!?!?!?

IIRC then the upper third of the first tower fell sideways onto the buldings below. That is about as controlled as the London renewal project called "the Blitz" or Nero's little arson in Rome.

Their arguments are self-contradictory. They claim that the mainstream authorities are lying when they say the building fell down chaotically, and that it actually fell in perfectly symmetrical fashion. Then they point out that a nearby building also collapsed from collateral damage, and they ask how the mainstream authorities explain that in light of the perfectly symmetrical collapse. And they don't even see the obvious answer.

I do seriously wonder if they're all either pathological liars or so stupid that they shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than a butter knife.

I vote stupid, because judging from my brother and his circle of fellow conspiracy nuts, they honestly believe this. The people who sell books about this, on the other hand, most likely are lying in order to exploit the stupid.

[Darth Onasi]

The only criteria for superficially similar to a conspiracy nut is that the towers "went straight down".
I've seen a million videos that harp on about how the towers should've toppled over and that "no expert can explain why they collapsed downwards".
Of course it's all lies and selective observation to prove their pet theories.

[FSTargetDrone]

The only criteria for superficially similar to a conspiracy nut is that the towers "went straight down".
I've seen a million videos that harp on about how the towers should've toppled over and that "no expert can explain why they collapsed downwards".
Of course it's all lies and selective observation to prove their pet theories.

What, "toppled over" like a tree being cut down?

[CaptainChewbacca]

The only criteria for superficially similar to a conspiracy nut is that the towers "went straight down".
I've seen a million videos that harp on about how the towers should've toppled over and that "no expert can explain why they collapsed downwards".
Of course it's all lies and selective observation to prove their pet theories.

What, "toppled over" like a tree being cut down?

Yes, but they neglect the fact that this ACTUALLY HAPPENED to one of the towers.

[Darth Onasi]

The only criteria for superficially similar to a conspiracy nut is that the towers "went straight down".
I've seen a million videos that harp on about how the towers should've toppled over and that "no expert can explain why they collapsed downwards".
Of course it's all lies and selective observation to prove their pet theories.

What, "toppled over" like a tree being cut down?

Yes, but they neglect the fact that this ACTUALLY HAPPENED to one of the towers.

Of course when they think toppling over, they mean as in the entire tower crashing down on top of the surrounding buildings, falling from the base. It's either that or a straight down controlled demolition, one or the other.
This is what happens when people who don't know jack about structural engineering or, hell, simple visual observation try to explain 9/11.

[Isolder74]

here is a video that is relevent.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPZr7Uep0M

[Chris OFarrell]

Just so I can confirm what I'm reading here after I skip past all their blabbing...

These nuts conclusively found iron oxide in the wreckage of a gigantic building...and claim this proves they found 'highly engineered explosives'...

I mean, they found rust, and think it proves the CIA blew up the World Trade Center? Is that about right?

[Rogue 9]

Just so I can confirm what I'm reading here after I skip past all their blabbing...

These nuts conclusively found iron oxide in the wreckage of a gigantic building...and claim this proves they found 'highly engineered explosives'...

I mean, they found rust, and think it proves the CIA blew up the World Trade Center? Is that about right?

In a nutshell, yes. I mean, they also found aluminum, but that's not that much of a stretch either.

[cosmicalstorm]

The only thing conspiracy nuts see when they watch the towers go down is superficial similarities to controlled demolition.

The really sad thing is that it is not superficially similar to a controlled demolition. Anyone who watches even a single controlled demolition video will see that it starts from the bottom of the building, not the top. These idiots are so lazy that they can't even be bothered to take a good look at a controlled demolition video before declaring that the 9/11 collapse looks just like one!

They are also blatantly dishonest as well. They never show pictures of the front of building 7 when they claim that it was only either lightly burning or superficially damaged. They never actually show the entire video of the buildings collapse when they want to claim that the building fall at free fall speeds. They especially do this with building 7 in that they alway start the films after the east mechanical penthouse has already fallen into the building meaning that the collapse has already started several seconds before.

You wouldnt happen to have a link to a video showing this? When I google "wtc 7" etc all I get is the tinfoil stuff.

[Darth Onasi]

You wouldnt happen to have a link to a video showing this? When I google "wtc 7" etc all I get is the tinfoil stuff.

Hoo boy, ain't that right. I tried to see if my google-fu was greater than yours and no, conspiracy theories up the ass.
It was a missile that hit the towers. It was a pair of military bombers. It was a bomb. It was a remote-controlled empty plane. Give me a break!

[Surlethe]

Check out this website for more info on the WTC7. Debunkin911 is the talkorigins of the 9/11 truth debate.

[Rogue 9]

You wouldnt happen to have a link to a video showing this? When I google "wtc 7" etc all I get is the tinfoil stuff.

Hoo boy, ain't that right. I tried to see if my google-fu was greater than yours and no, conspiracy theories up the ass.
It was a missile that hit the towers. It was a pair of military bombers. It was a bomb. It was a remote-controlled empty plane. Give me a break!

If anyone has it, it'll be this guy. Even if he doesn't have the full footage of the collapse (I haven't actually trawled through all 56 videos yet to see), his stuff is still well worth watching.

[Darth Onasi]

You wouldnt happen to have a link to a video showing this? When I google "wtc 7" etc all I get is the tinfoil stuff.

Hoo boy, ain't that right. I tried to see if my google-fu was greater than yours and no, conspiracy theories up the ass.
It was a missile that hit the towers. It was a pair of military bombers. It was a bomb. It was a remote-controlled empty plane. Give me a break!

If anyone has it, it'll be this guy. Even if he doesn't have the full footage of the collapse (I haven't actually trawled through all 56 videos yet to see), his stuff is still well worth watching.

Indeed he does.
A shot of the full collapse at 3 minutes in, and a good analysis of it overall.

[Isolder74]

This video will help.

How fast did tower 7 fall?

[Pulp Hero]

The only criteria for superficially similar to a conspiracy nut is that the towers "went straight down".
I've seen a million videos that harp on about how the towers should've toppled over and that "no expert can explain why they collapsed downwards".

Um, I'm no scientist, but I suspect that the initial impact of the planes was not a strong enough force to completely bend and knock over the steel frame of the building. However the explosion, and resulting high temperature fires caused the frame at the impact level to give in and drop down on to the the rest of the tower creating an increasing chain reaction. But what do I know.

[The Vortex Empire]

The only criteria for superficially similar to a conspiracy nut is that the towers "went straight down".
I've seen a million videos that harp on about how the towers should've toppled over and that "no expert can explain why they collapsed downwards".

Um, I'm no scientist, but I suspect that the initial impact of the planes was not a strong enough force to completely bend and knock over the steel frame of the building. However the explosion, and resulting high temperature fires caused the frame at the impact level to give in and drop down on to the the rest of the tower creating an increasing chain reaction. But what do I know.

Especially seeing as modern buildings are designed specifically to collapse down upon themselves and not fall over.

Do conspiracy nuts do no research or are they simply blind to evidence that contradicts their beliefs?

[Master of Ossus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire "9/11 Truth" movement based around the idea that jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt the steel used in the WTC's structure? If so, how the fuck do they explain the April 2007 Bay Bridge disaster, in which a section of the Bridge... collapsed after a gasoline truck caught fire on it? Was THAT an inside job exercised by the goverment, too? Was THAT meant to start a war, or cast suspicion on non-Jews (or whatever they think the motive was)?

[Darth Onasi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire "9/11 Truth" movement based around the idea that jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt the steel used in the WTC's structure? If so, how the fuck do they explain the April 2007 Bay Bridge disaster, in which a section of the Bridge... collapsed after a gasoline truck caught fire on it? Was THAT an inside job exercised by the goverment, too? Was THAT meant to start a war, or cast suspicion on non-Jews (or whatever they think the motive was)?

An example of lack of imagination or thought on the conspiracist's part there. The fire didn't have to melt the steel, it just had to weaken it to the point it could no longer support the floors above it.
But when conspiracy theorists hear that the jet fuel burning compromised the structure, they immediately assume that means the fire must've literally melted away the steel, and base arguments on debunking that particular strawman.

[Master of Ossus]

An example of lack of imagination or thought on the conspiracist's part there. The fire didn't have to melt the steel, it just had to weaken it to the point it could no longer support the floors above it.
But when conspiracy theorists hear that the jet fuel burning compromised the structure, they immediately assume that means the fire must've literally melted away the steel, and base arguments on debunking that particular strawman.

But that's just it: if gasoline doesn't burn hotly enough to weaken structural steel and cause structures to collapse, then what happened to the bridge interchange?

[The Spartan]

But that's just it: if gasoline doesn't burn hotly enough to weaken structural steel and cause structures to collapse, then what happened to the bridge interchange?

And doesn't jet fuel burn at a higher temperature than gasoline? I don't recall offhand.

Anyhow, to answer your question, and I'm not really disagreeing with you, is that even if the fires were hot enough to melt the steel structural failure can (and at the WTC my guess is that it probably did) happen before we reach the point of melting as the WTC towers had severe structural damage that the bridge did not.

To give you an example, the carbon steel I'm used to dealing with has a tensile (ultimate) strength of 60 ksi, a yield of 35 ksi and from -20F up to 400F an allowable stress of 20 ksi. Raise the temperature to 800F and the allowable drops to 10.8. (FYI, those allowables include a 3x safety factor.) Now, the piece itself doesn't reach ultimate failure (in tension) until you hit about 60 ksi, but at ambient up to about 400F, a structure will begin failing when you hit 35 ksi, all things being equal. Raise the temperature to, say 800F, and you'll reach failure much sooner. And that's before you start introducing things like thermal expansion stresses, bending moments and torsional stresses from uneven heating, new shear stresses applied to joints, the structural damage from kinetic impact, etc.

[cosmicalstorm]

Thanks for the WTC 7 full collapse videos, the truther movement has really managed to hide away the one showing the east mechanical penthouse falling down a full 10 seconds before the rest of the building goes down, I've spent years debating this stuff and I've never seen that before!

I mentioned the diesel generators inside WTC 7 in a debate about the fire there but someone else replied "bullshit because diesel dosent burn", now I know its not as flammable as gasoline but still I imagine it wont remain unaffected if the entire building in which it is housed is on fire. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

[Edi]

Thanks for the WTC 7 full collapse videos, the truther movement has really managed to hide away the one showing the east mechanical penthouse falling down a full 10 seconds before the rest of the building goes down, I've spent years debating this stuff and I've never seen that before!

I mentioned the diesel generators inside WTC 7 in a debate about the fire there but someone else replied "bullshit because diesel dosent burn", now I know its not as flammable as gasoline but still I imagine it wont remain unaffected if the entire building in which it is housed is on fire. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Want good links on building 7, try these:
http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=167
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Of those, the second one is better, but the first one is good too. Don't let the urls scare you, these are not Truther links. The opposite, in fact.